As family structures evolve, new complexities continue to develop in third-party custody cases. Fact-specific decisions in cases like Glover v. Junior, which involves a same-sex family’s use of assisted reproductive technology (ART), have demonstrated the need for new legislation that provides legal protections to non-traditional families.
Glover v. Junior represents a significant development in Pennsylvania law that may have far-reaching implications for non-traditional and same-sex families. The matter involves a same-sex, married couple who utilized ART to conceive a child. When the couple subsequently separated and a divorce complaint was filed, the non-biological parent, Junior, asserted claims to establish legal parentage, despite lacking a biological connection to the child.
The trial court initially ruled in favor of Junior, granting her legal parentage based on the parties’ contractual agreement to co-parent the child. However, this determination was appealed and subsequently overturned by the Superior Court. The Superior Court then reheard the case en banc and ultimately affirmed the trial court’s original ruling, finding that Junior had established legal parentage through the parties’ oral and written agreements, as well as their actions demonstrating their mutual intent to conceive and raise the child together.
The matter is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which will have the opportunity to provide guidance and clarity on the issue of intent-based parentage. This concept, as recognized by the Superior Court, could have significant implications for non-traditional families such as families involving the LGBTQ+ community, as it allows courts to look beyond biological relationships and focus on the parties’ shared intention to parent a child jointly.
While Junior may have lacked standing to ask for legal and physical custody, the Superior Court’s recognition of her legal parentage status grants her the same rights and responsibilities as the biological parent, including the ability to make important decisions regarding the child’s upbringing. Should the Supreme Court uphold the decision, this case, in focusing on the shared intention to parent a child, makes a distinction that is crucial for non-traditional families, as it provides a pathway to secure parental rights even in the absence of a biological connection.
The proposed Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) currently making its way through the Pennsylvania legislature can further solidify these advancements. The UPA aims to memorialize and provide guidance on the case law that has been established over the years, including the principles of in loco parentis and intent-based parentage. By codifying these concepts, the UPA could offer much-needed legal protections and certainty for same-sex and other non-traditional families in the Commonwealth.
Both the Glover v. Junior case and the potential passage of the UPA indicate that the legal landscape and the future of family law may soon become more inclusive, adapting to support families of all shapes and sizes.
